of the sources of all propaganda which exposes to public hatred or contempt any group of Americans because of race, religion, descent, or nationality.

When I speak of complete disclosure I am speaking of disclosure not only of the authors, but of every individual who assists in publishing, circulating, or supporting such propaganda. I think we should provide criminal sanctions against concealment of such facts and require every piece of such propaganda to disclose completely its sources and origins. Such a requirement would not be oppressive to anyone who honestly thinks that a particular group is a menace to America. And I believe that anyone who honestly thinks so should not be prevented from saying so. If our statute is limited to this requirement of disclosure, I think it would be a workable statute and certainly, it would not involve any dangers to our constitutional civil liberties.

Mr. PORTNOw. But don't you think it would be a comparatively easy matter to get around such a requirement of disclosure by setting up dummy corporations and phony organizations?

Mr. CURRY. I think that the bill can deal with that, Mr. Portnow, by piercing the corporate veil, to use a lawyer's expression, by requiring disclosure of officers and principal stockholders.

Mr. PORTNOw. That sounds all right, Mr. Curry. But what about the difficulties that Mr. Seagle pointed out of obtaining adequate prosecution and conviction in local courts?

Mr. CURRY. I think he is partly right, but we can implement criminal provisions in two ways: In the first place, we could bar from the mails any scurrilous propaganda of the type that we have tried to define material that does not bear on its face a complete disclosure of those responsible for its publication and circuiation. In the second place, we could prohibit importation of such material. the present time considerable amounts of such material are imported from abroad. I think that these two measures, which could be enforced administratively, would put teeth into the statute.

At

Mr. PORTNOW. It seems to me that Mr. Curry has outlined a pattern of effective legislation that gets at the root of our problem without infringing upon civil liberties. I wonder if Mr. Seagle agrees with me.

Mr. SEAGLE. Certainly I have no objection to legislation along the lines which Mr. Curry has described. It may do some good and it certainly won't do any harm. In saying this, I think I express not merely a personal opinion but the opinion of many who have worked for the maintenance of civil liberties. I understand that it is the policy of the American Civil Liberties Union not to oppose statutes requiring the disclosure of information, since they do not involve any infringements of anybody's liberty, unless, of course, the provisions are so onerous or the definitions so vague that they would result in repression. Neither of these defects is inherent in the legislation which Mr. Curry has outlined. I should say, however, by way of caution, that I don't think legislation of the sort proposed is going to be very effective in dealing with the problem. I think that organizations like the Civil Liberties Union or the Workers Defense League, which are on the job day in and day out trying to protect minority rights, can be very much more effective than a law on the statute books that is nobody's baby, that depends for its enforcement on decisions of juries, prosecuting officials, post office clerks, and custom officials, none of whom are selected because of their knowledge in fields of race and religion.

What about that, Mr. Wise?

Mr. WISE. I agree completely on this point with Mr. Seagle. I think the experience of the New Deal shows that the only kind of legal reform that is more than words on paper is legal reform that is implemented and enforced and administered by some special administrative agency which is selected specifically to do the job of administering that particular reform. I am thinking particularly of social-security legislation, labor-relations legislation, wage-and-hour legislation, and control of financial securities. All these reforms have been fairly effective because it was the job of some specific agency in the Government to put them into effect. On the other hand, a great many other laws that do not involve special agencies have not been effective. I think therefore, that we ought to establish a special agency, an office of minority relations, which would have the job of investigating and answering malicious propaganda designed to sow hatred against groups of Americans because of their race, religion, nationality, or descent. Mr. SEAGLE. I can't agree to that, Mr. Wise. That would be putting the Government into the business of propaganda. I think that is a bad business for the Government to engage in. And if a Government agency is given the responsibility of answering false and malicious propaganda directed against minority

groups, then, if it failed to answer any particular attack its silence could be construed as approval of that attack. I think such a power would be terribly dangerous to the very groups we are trying to protect.

Mr. CURRY. I wonder if this isn't a job that requires some division of labor. I quite agree with Mr. Wise that the proposed agency ought not to attempt to answer all the malicious propaganda with which it would have to deal. I shudder at the task that any agency would have, that tried to answer all the trash which is now circulating through our mails. And I agree with Mr. Seagle when he suggests that if the agency once tried to answer false propaganda, its failure to answer any particular piece of it would be construed as evidence of sympathy with the attack. What we can do is to divide the labor between organizations like those that Mr. Seagle mentioned-the American Civil Liberties Union, the Council against Intolerance, and the Common Council for American Unity on the one hand, and the Office of Minority Relations on the other. To the governmental agency would go the task of simply compiling information on the sources and sponsorships of these hate propagandas and to the voluntary civic organizations, the job of answering them. The duties of the proposed Office of Minority Relations would be fourfold: First to secure and compile information with respect to the publication of matter which exposes groups of Americans to hatred or contempt by reason of their race, religion, descent, or nationality; second, to collaborate with administrative agencies of the respective States and Territories and of the Federal Government in securing such information; third, to bring such information to the attention of institutions and organizations, public and private, which are prepared to analyse and expose such matter or the activities and connections of the persons responsible for it; and, finally, to make public the data so acquired.

Mr. PORTNOW. It seems to me that legislation in such terms as Mr. Curry has described ought to meet the needs that Mr. Wise has demonstrated, without running into the dangers that Mr. Seagle has pointed out. What do you think, Mr. Wise?

Mr. WISE. I am more than satisfied with this legislation.

Mr. PORTNOW. Mr. Seagle, would you be satisfied?

Mr. SEAGLE. I think an agency operating along the lines of research and investigation that Mr. Curry outlines would be of very great value, but, on the other hand, I am afraid that with partisan political control of your proposed Office of Minority Relations the agency might do a job very different from the job set forth in the legislation.

Mr. PORTNOW. Mr. Curry, do you think it is possible to guard against partisan political control of such an agency?

Mr. CURRY. You know Aristotle suggested about 23 centuries ago that intelligent man will not expect the same certainties in politics that he may expect in mathematics or physics. But if we wait for complete certainty against all dangers before we do anything, we are not going to meet the menace of totalitarianism. Now, as a practical matter, I think we can establish certain legislative safeguards against political control of our proposed Office of Minority Relations. We can provide, for example, that the head of the Office should be selected by the President from a list of three names submitted by the chancellor and the regents of the Smithsonian Institution. As you know, the Smithsonian Institution is the leading scientific agency of the Government. The Bureau of American Ethnology, which is in charge of race studies, is under the Smithsonian Institution, as are various other scientific agencies. The Chancellor of the Smithsonian Institution is the Chief Justice of the United States, at present Charles Evans Hughes. The Board of Regents is a nonpartisan body, composed of eminent citizens, scientists, and statesmen. I think we can be reasonably certain that a man chosen by the President from a list of nominees submitted by the Chief Justice and the Regents of the Smithsonian Institution would not owe any political debts by reason of his appointment and would not be appointed for political reasons. As for the other employees of the proposed Office, we can require that they be subject to the civil-service laws and regulations, including the Hatch Act. In this way I think that we could assure a reasonably high level of nonpartisan administration of the proposed legislation.

Mr. PORTNOW. Let me see if I understand now exactly what the proposed legislation would involve. In the first place, our legislation would deal with published matter which exposes to public hatred or contempt any group or class of Americans because of their race, religion, descent, or nationality. It would provide that any publication of this character should disclose the name and address of all those individuals-whether operating directly or through corporations— who in fact have written, supported, or helped to publish or circulate the matter in

question. Any published matter of this character not containing the required disclosures would be barred from the mails and would be barred from importation into the United States. And those guilty of publishing or circulating such matter without proper disclosures would be subject to criminal penalties.

Also, a special nonpartisan agency would be set up to administer the act, to conduct necessary investigations, and to make reports on the sources and activities of this un-American propaganda. Is that a fair statement of points on

which we are able to agree?

Mr. WISE. I think so.

Mr. PORTNOW. Mr. Seagle?

Mr. SEAGLE. I don't think the picture is quite complete, Mr. Portnow. I'd like to know where in the Government this proposed Office of Minority Relations would be placed before I give it my approval. If it is to be an adjunct of the Dies committee, or of the F. B. I., I'd have serious doubts about the future of this agency.

Mr. PORTNOW. That is a point worth clearing up. What about it, Mr. Curry? Mr. CURRY. Obviously the agency would not be an adjunct of the Dies committee. The Dies committee is a committee of Congress set up on a temporary basis. This agency would be in the executive department of the Government. And there is no reason why it should be placed within the F. B. I. The agency's job is not that of securing information leading to the conviction of criminals, but rather the more constructive job of carrying our research and supplying information on matters which are not criminal but which are of such a character that the American public has a right to know what goes on. The Office of Minority Relations might be set up as an independent agency, or, it might be located in the Interior Department. That Department is already dealing with many serious racial problems of the Federal Government, those relating to Indians and to the native populations of Puerto Rico, the Hawaiian Islands, and the Philippines.

Mr. SEAGLE. I quite agree that the proposed Office of Minority Relations would be more likely to function in a decent and constructive way if it were placed in the Department of the Interior.

Mr. WISE. I wonder if we are clear on one final point? Is this bill to be limited to election-campaign literature? I feel that it should be as broad as possible and should cover all literature outside of election campaigns as well.

Mr. SEAGLE. Wouldn't you be infringing on State rights if you extended this sort of control beyond literature used in Federal election campaigns?

Mr. PORTNOW. I think Mr. Seagle raises a serious legal problem. I wonder if our social engineer, Mr. Curry, can interpret the bill for us on this point.

Mr. CURRY. Yes; and I'm glad Mr. Seagle brought it up because I think it is an important one. I believe that State governments ought to be encouraged to enact legislation to face the menace of hate propaganda. But, after all, State governments can't very well deal with Federal elections; nor can they deal with the mails or with customs officials. Therefore I believe that Federal legislationso far as it imposes criminal penalties should be limited to material circulated in connection with Federal elections. But insofar as it provides for exclusion from the mails and exclusion from importation, it should apply to all anonymous scurrilous materials, whether or not they relate to a Federal election. And certainly the investigations and researches of the Office of Minority Relations should not be limited to election materials.

Mr. PORTNOW. You mean that any law enforcement not connected with Federal elections or mails or imports should be left to State action? Mr. CURRY. Exactly.

Mr. PORTNOW. And as I understand it the provisions that you have outlined are all embodied in the propaganda-exposure bill recently introduced by Senator Gillette as S. 990.

Mr. CURRY. That is correct.

Mr. PORTNOW. Thank you, gentlemen. Unfortunately, our time is now up, but before we go off the air I want to express my appreciation of the conscientious thinking which has been given to this vital problem by the Senate Committee to Investigate Campaign Expenditures, by Senator Gillette, and by the Institute of Living Law.

The ANNOUNCER. You have just been listening to a discussion of the problem of racial propaganda and the attempt to deal with that problem embodied in Senator Gillette's propaganda-exposure bill, S. 990. This program was presented by the New York University Forum with the collaboration of the Institute of Living Law of Washington, D. C. Copies of the bill, S. 990, may be secured by writing to Senator Gillette, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. Copies

of this broadcast may be secured by writing to the Institute of Living Law, 340 Woodward Building, Washington, Ď. C., or by writing to this station.

Senator GILLETTE. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate your courtesy in giving me this opportunity to appear before you.

Senator BUTLER. S. 593 is the one on which you have talked most, Senator Gillette?

Senator GILLETTE. Yes.

Senator BUTLER. And if there were to be a choice, you would put S. 593 at the top?

Senator GILLETTE. Yes; I think it is so essential to have some control over these expenditures. If we don't, I am afraid we are putting our Federal offices up for sale.

Senator BUTLER. This is a bill that you have prepared from your experiences on the committee?

Senator GILLETTE. Yes, sir.

Senator HATCH. It, in effect, carries out the recommendations made by your committee at that time?

Senator GILLETTE. It fully does, and was the consensus of the conclusions that we had reached, and that we reached after consultation with Mr. Milligan, who represented the Department of Justice as chairman of the special committee that was dealing with this same situation..

The suggestion, as I said, approached the problem from the thought of having a candidate select his fiscal agent. Then these other groups would be proceeding without authority.

As you know, within the last 2 days the question of expenditures by the Political Action Committee, and the question of expenditures by cooperative groups, have been put up to the Attorney General. They are going to be thrown right in our face all through this campaign.

Senator HATCH. On those two matters which you have just mentioned and I was reading in the paper within the last day or two that Mr. Spangler raised the question of the R. E. A. Has he asked the Attorney General for an opinion on that?

Senator GILLETTE. I don't know.

Senator HATCH. Well, anyway, that and the Political Action Committee have been prominent in the press recently. Do you think the bill which you have sponsored here, S. 593, would correct the things that are complained about in regard to these matters?

Senator GILLETTE. I think it can be made to correct them, Mr. Chairman At the time I drafted that, which was a year and a half ago and I haven't read it since, I might say

Senator HATCH (interposing). I wish, Senator Gillette, you would restudy your bill in the light of current discussions, and make such suggestions to us as you might have and, if it doesn't now meet thesituation, tell us what you think should be done.

Senator GILLETTE. I would appreciate the opportunity.

I noticed, as you did, that Mr. Spangler had addressed a query to the Attorney General. I don't believe he spoke of the R. E. A. as one group, but he spoke of the cooperatives, of which the R. E. A. was one, or is one.

Senator HATCH. Yes.

Senator GILLETTE. Have they a right, would they have a right, to raise a comparable fund of $700,000, or whatever it might be, and

expend it in behalf of a candidate? And it is because of the imminence of that, that I appreciate your suggestion, and I will give it some additional thought, for any value that it may have to you.

Senator MEAD. Before you go, Senator, and in connection with your further study, I believe that before we support affirmatively any legislation that may be of a limiting or restricting character, that we ought to take into consideration the alarming lack of interest that is developing in this country as manifested in the small number, proportionately speaking, who participate in our Presidential elections.

We have had recent elections in which only 50 percent of our people were interested enough to vote for the President of the United States. Senator HATCH. Or even less.

Senator MEAD. In some elections, in certain States, it has drifted down to but 30 percent. Now, if we continue to attack the problem from the standpoint of reducing interest in campaigns, while it may have a salutary effect on the standard of the campaigns, and the dignity associated with campaigning, it may also have the effect of reducing still further the number that participate in the campaigns. Now we know what happens in a democracy when the people refrain from participating in elections. Recently Newfoundland, the oldest dominion in the British Empire, became bankrupt. Her people are enfeebled because of a bad economy; and it all resulted from corruption at the top, and nepotism in office, and it was due largely to the fact that interest waned constantly until very few took any interest whatsoever in the campaigns.

Now we have some States in this Union where, on election day, only 10 percent of the people go out to vote. We have restrictions that prevent them from going out to vote unless they are able to pay their poll taxes, some of them for an accumulation of 10 or 15 years We have educational qualifications; we have property qualifications. And it occurs to me that if we continue to view this picture in the light of limiting participation on the part of unions or farm organizations or even individuals, we may continue to reduce the interest in the elections by reason of our neglect of that part of the problem.

Take, for instance, the C. I. O. political-action group. It occurs to me that that labor organization, or any labor organization, has the right to set up a group, taking cognizance of the alarming lack of interest that has been developing, for the purpose of creating added interest in the election of public officials.

Now if the C. I. O. political-action group's purpose is to get out the registration, interest their members in the duty of registering, making arrangements for those that are removed by reason of being employed in distant munitions plants, in preparing to register back home or in their new location, and absentee voting; and if they go further than that and assist in getting the vote out on election day by arousing continued interest in it, I don't see that that should be prevented in view of the fact that we set up all these other obstacles such as poll taxes and property taxes, and educational qualifications that make it difficult for people to vote.

So that if the C. I. O., as an organization concerned with the problem and bent on arousing interest, conducts an educational campaign to get out the registration, to increase the number of our people that will participate in the voting, I don't see that we ought to do anything but encourage that sort of thing.